An Evaluation of the Myth That “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution”

Abstract

Darwinists commonly claim that evolution is the foundation of all of the sciences, especially the life sciences and that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” To evaluate this claim I reviewed both the textbooks used for life science classes at the college where I teach and those that I used in my past university course work. I concluded from my survey that Darwinism was rarely mentioned. I also reviewed my course work and that of another researcher and came to the same conclusions. From this survey I concluded that the claim “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” is false.

Keywords: Teaching of evolution, the application of evolution, creationism, college text books

Introduction

In 1929, an article in Popular Science was written to encourage the teaching of the theory of evolution in spite of the laws that were passed by several states to curb the teaching of Darwinism. The article claimed that “The theory of evolution is altogether essential to the teaching of biology and its kindred sciences” (Armstrong 1929, p. 135). The most popular biology book in the 1920s by Dr. Truman Moon, entitled Biology for Beginners, stated that the theory of evolution is “the cornerstone of all recent science and the foundation of all modern thought” (quoted in Armstrong 1929, p. 133). Almost a half-century later, the eminent American evolutionist, Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900–1975), claimed that “evolution” is the cornerstone of biology and is central to understanding both living and extinct organisms (Dobzhansky 1973, p. 125).

His statement that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” has been repeated in thousands of articles to argue that Darwinism must have a central place in all areas of life-science education, including biology, anatomy, medicine, agriculture, and biotechnology (for example, see Antolin and Herbers 2001, p. 2379). Orthodox Darwinism is defined as the evolution of all complex life forms on earth from a single common ancestor as a result of natural selection acting on random mutations in the genome over vast periods of time through strictly naturalistic processes. A recent internet search revealed over 50,000 hits for Dobzhansky’s quote. As a result of this oft-repeated assertion, many argue that evolution must be a central part of all public school and college life science classes. In the words of the National Academy of Science, evolution is “the most important concept in modern biology, a concept essential to understanding key aspects of living things” (emphasis mine) (National Academy of Science 1998, p. viii). This claim is made because Darwin’s

Origin of Species has had more influence on Western culture than any other book of modern times. It was not only a great biological treatise, closely reasoned and revolutionary, but it carried significant implications for philosophy, religion, sociology, and history. Evolution is the greatest single unifying principle in all biology (Prosser 1959, p. 539).

Dawkins opines that, without Darwinism, “biology is a collection of miscellaneous facts.” He adds before children “learn to think in an evolutionary way” the material that students learn

will just be facts, with no binding thread to hold them together, nothing to make them memorable or coherent. With evolution, a great light breaks through into the deepest recesses, into every corner, of the science of life. You understand not only what is, but why. How can you possibly teach biology unless you begin with evolution? How, indeed, can you call yourself an educated person, if you know nothing of the Darwinian reason for your own existence? (Dawkins 2002, p. 58).

The claim that evolution is central to biology has been around for decades. For example, the Scopes Trial transcript included the following words penned by Vanderbilt University biology professor Dr. E. N. Reinke:

To deny the teacher of biology the use of this most fundamental generalization of his science would make his teaching as chaotic as an attempt to teach . . . physics without assuming the existence of the ether (Reinke 1927, p. 8).

The ether idea has now been fully refuted, a fact that illustrates the fallibility of the biology claim if the analogy were true. The evolution-is-central-to-biology belief has even made the Doonesbury cartoon; the lead character stating that “Evolution is the foundation of all life sciences. Without it, whole fields from genetics to ecology can’t exist!” (Trudeau 2011).

Although Darwinists often talk about the central importance of “evolution” in gaining a basic understanding of the natural world, in the daily work of both scientific education and scientific research, evolution is rarely mentioned or even a concern. This has been my experience as a research associate involved in cancer research in the department of experimental pathology at the Medical University of Ohio and as a college professor in the life and behavioral sciences for over 30 years. As Conrad E. Johanson, Ph.D., Professor of Clinical Neurosciences and Physiology and Director of Neurosurgery Research at Brown Medical School in Rhode Island noted, research scientists

rarely deal directly with macroevolutionary theory, be it biological or physical. For example, in my 25 years of neuroscience teaching and research I have only VERY rarely had to deal with natural selection, origins, macroevolution, etc. My professional work in science stems from rigorous training in biology, chemistry, physics, and math, not from world views about evolution. I suspect that such is the case for most scientists in academia, industry, and elsewhere (Johanson, pers. comm.).

Renowned chemist and National Academy of Science Member, Dr. Philip Skell, Professor Emeritus of Pennsylvania State University (see Lewis, 1992), surveyed his colleagues “engaged in non-historical biology research, related to their ongoing research projects.” He found, in answer to the question, “Would you have done the work any differently if you believed Darwin’s theory were wrong?” that “for the large number” of the Darwinist researchers he interviewed, “differing only in the amount of hemming and hawing” was “in my work it would have made no difference.” Some added they thought it may make a difference for other researchers (Skell, pers. comm.).

Another scientist, Professor Henry F. Schaefer III, the Graham-Purdue Professor of Chemistry and Director of the Center for Computational Chemistry at the University of Georgia, added that

Darwinian assumptions are not needed for the day-to-day work of science. If you look at the biochemical literature for scientific papers that try to explain how biochemical systems developed step-by-step in Darwinian fashion, there aren’t any. It’s startling. Most biologists completely ignore evolution in their work, and the ones that think about it simply look for relationships and don’t bother with Darwinism. My University of Georgia colleague in biochemistry, Professor Russell Carlson, has expressed the same sentiment to me privately (Schaefer 2004, p. 102).

From 1981 to 1997, Professor Schaefer was the sixth most highly cited chemist in the world out of a total of 628,000 chemists whose research was cited at least once. The Science Citation Index reported that, as of December 31, 2010, his research had been cited over 47,000 times.

Of interest is that the fact that molecular, cell, and developmental biology majors at Yale University Graduate School are no longer required to complete courses on evolution (Hartman 1997). I have noted from my own research, both to my frustration and over my objections, that many of the subscriptions to journals focusing on evolution at both the University of Toledo Medical College and Bowling Green State University have been dropped. I was told by the reference librarian that there was little demand for them.

I also interviewed several biology professors. Typical is Tony Jelsma, who obtained his Ph.D. in Biochemistry in 1989 and did postdoctoral research for almost eight years before landing a position teaching at the Department of Biology, Dordt College (Sioux Center, Iowa). His B.Sc. (1983) and Ph.D. (1989) were both completed at McMaster University. He stated that he did not encounter Darwinism in his work or studies except in one undergraduate biochemistry class where he studied the abiotic synthesis of adenine (Jelsma, pers. comm.).

A Survey of Textbooks

Having taught biology, genetics, zoology, psychology, and related courses at the college level for the past 40 years, I evaluated this claim by examining the content of the major textbooks that I have used to teach science courses. I found most of the biochemistry/molecular biology, genetics, and cell biology texts we have used never, or hardly ever, mentioned Darwinism (see Table 1). The only courses that covered it in any detail were Biology 101, zoology, and anthropology. In my experience, even in these classes, many instructors skipped the section on evolution.

Even those textbook chapters labeled “evolution” often spend much time on non-evolution topics, such as basic genetics, human development, population genetics, and similar areas. None of the anatomy and physiology textbooks we have used ever mentioned evolution. The only reference to Darwinism in the microbiology texts we used was on the development of bacterial resistance (which is not a concern for intelligent design or even creationists because many of the mechanisms producing resistance are well known and do not support orthodox evolution, see Bergman 2003).

Table 1. The college natural science texts I have used in the past 20 years and their evolution coverage.

Text

Biological Evolution Content

1. Introduction to Biology

Biology (S. Mader)
McGraw–Hill, 6th ed., 1998.

A total of four out of 51 chapters cover evolution, occasionally mentioned in the other 47 chapters.

Life (R. Lewis, et al.)McGraw–Hill, 4th ed., 2002.

One unit on evolution (five chapters out of 45). occasionally mentioned elsewhere.

Methodology

The methodology employed in this study to determine if a textbook and college class promoted Darwinism involved reading the entire text and reviewing all of the class notes. This was necessary because if textbook indexes were scanned for the terms “Darwinism” and “evolution” the number of expected hits would be fairly low because phrases can be used in textbooks to teach the ideas inherent in Darwinism without mentioning the terms evolution, Darwinism, or Darwin.

For example, Darwinism and biological evolution may not be directly mentioned in geology textbooks, but they assume evolution in the discussions of the organisms found in the various layers, and in descriptions of the millions of years involved in depositing the rock layers. If Darwinism and evolution was limited to overt statements of the biological aspects of Darwinism, its impact in the thinking shaped by what is taught in the textbooks and coursework will be misjudged. Nonetheless, it is still true that, although Darwinism and naturalistic evolution are the underlying assumptions of many textbooks, they have little impact on the actual day-to-day research and implications of the scientific work.

If the methodology involved in the textbook searches were limited to explicit references of biological Darwinism, then many geology textbooks would have little to say on the subject, although the underlying naturalism would still be the foundation for the teaching. In more advanced textbooks Darwinism is rarely even mentioned, supporting the research in this article: textbooks are able to teach the content without clear references back to the supposed evolutionary past. This illustrates the fact that an evolutionary understanding is not necessary to conduct most research or develop certain therapies, since those applications are dependent on the present physical processes, not on their origin.

In spite of the blatant teaching of Darwinism and naturalistic philosophy in some of the more recent textbooks, those ideas have little effect on the production of medicines, technologies, therapies, etc. A veterinarian does not need to know how the horse’s hoof evolved in order to treat an injury or infection.

Discussion

Judging by the textbooks reviewed, Darwinism (the naturalistic evolution of life from a common ancestor) is often judged as unimportant and thus totally ignored in most science classes. Although the evolution content of newer books is increasing, especially in introductory textbooks, likely in response to the intelligent design and creationist movements, it is still largely insignificant based on my review. Because I have much interest in the subject, I usually cover it in more depth than is usual. Many of the instructors at the colleges where I have taught largely ignored the evolution sections of textbooks, partly because there is a great deal of other material that must be covered and something has to be cut—and many teachers elect to skip evolution because it is one of the least-important subjects in most science majors. How many healthcare workers need to understand Darwinian theories? They do need to understand antibiotic resistance and natural selection but not Darwinism as defined above. In short, judging by my survey of major textbooks, the oft-repeated claim about Darwinism being central to natural science is false.

If, as Dobzhansky claimed, “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (emphasis added) (Dobzhansky 1973, p. 1), why is evolution rarely mentioned in most natural science books? At my college we usually use the leading college texts in each area (for example, the anatomy and physiology text we have used for almost 20 years is the Anatomy and Physiology, Hole et al., 2003, 10th ed.), a standard text. It is a minor topic even in most introductory biology books that cover the subject in more depth than most all other courses except formal classes on evolution.

While developing a college-level course on evolution, I surveyed most four-year colleges and universities in Ohio and many in Michigan. Biology majors at the schools surveyed were required to take only one class in evolution (and all schools surveyed used the same text, Evolutionary Analysis (Freeman and Herron 2001) a fairly good text that I also considered for my own evolution class, which is now being developed).

My experience also conforms to the results of my research. Several studies have found that most future science teachers do not complete courses that focus on evolution as part of their training (Rutledge and Mitchell 2002; Rutledge and Warden 2000). Moore found that

many of today's high school teachers don’t recall hearing the word evolution in their college biology courses, apparently because many biology professors do not teach evolution (Moore 2004a, p. 864).

This conforms to my survey of local college biology students living in northwest Ohio. Most schools either skip the chapters on evolution or only spend a class or two on the subject. About 30% cover both creation and evolution, and 20%, in one student’s words, “try to jam evolution down our throats” and succeed, primarily, in turning off students to biology, and often science as well. Another problem is that many teachers who teach Darwinism objectively are accused of not teaching it at all when, in fact, they cover it in much more depth than most teachers (Court Case 2002; Moore 2004b).

Coverage of Darwinism in My College Science Course Work

I also reviewed all of my graduate and undergraduate college course work in science to determine the time spent on Darwinism in each class. The review included course work completed at Wayne State University, Medical University of Ohio, Bowling Green State University, University of Wisconsin, Miami University (Oxford, Ohio), University of Toledo, University of California–Berkeley, and several other colleges. All hours were converted to quarter hours, and some classes are in process.

My review of my course work (over 1,000 quarter hours) completed at seven universities and five colleges conformed to my survey of my teaching experience. Except in courses devoted to evolution, the subject was rarely covered in science classes, although it occasionally came up in other classes (see Table 2). I found in my biology/natural science education, which entailed over eight years of full-time college, that Darwinism was rarely mentioned. For my graduate degree in biomedical science, it never came up either in class or in the textbooks except to note that a gene was “evolutionarily conserved,” meaning only that the gene sequence was very similar in most life forms, both advanced and so-called primitive.

Because this is a topic in which I was very interested when in college, whenever it came up in class I listened attentively and would have remembered if it was discussed in class. Based on a review of my detailed notes, even the course that I completed on evolutionary biology covered mostly the history of the creation-evolution conflict, genetics, animal breeding, and related topics. Darwinism was actually discussed more in behavioral science classes and textbooks compared to natural science classes—and in these cases it was often assumed to be true. The evolutionary worldview dominated, and Darwinism, including naturalism, was rarely questioned, even in my Bible as Literature class.

Dr. Scott Hanson also reviewed his course work at a major Canadian university, the results of which are in Table 3. His survey came to the same conclusion as my study. Adam S. Wilkins’ in the journal BioEssays flipped Dobzhansky’s claim, observing that

evolution occupies a special, and paradoxical, place within biology as a whole. While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. “Evolution” would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one (emphasis mine) (Wilkins 2000, p. 1051).

O’Leary adds that the reason why

evolution is “highly superfluous” is that, in reality, nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of biochemistry, which is what gives biology its place in the linked chain of sciences. Evolution is a form of history, a history that may or may not have happened as described in any current work on the subject (O’Leary 2004, p. 100).

Future Research

The sample size represents the experience of only two individuals, thus it has a limited scope and should be replicated by evaluating a large number of recent science textbooks. Furthermore, due the organized opposition to Darwin critics by evolutionists, in some of the more recent biology and earth science textbooks virtually every chapter has implied or openly taught an evolutionary view of the living world and universe. Evolution is now promoted more heavily than in the past and students report it is today more often a major emphasis of some professors, even in psychology classes where some students may be required to study evolutionary theories of development and write papers on the topic.

Conclusions

The message that Darwinists convey to the public is often very different from what they recognize as true among themselves. Although they state to the public that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,” most scientists can “conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas” (Witham 2002, p. 43). One “notable aspect of natural scientists in assembly [at conferences] is how little they focus on evolution. Its “day-to-day irrelevance is a great ‘paradox’ in biology” (Witham 2002, p. 43).

Nonetheless Darwinists often are “loath to display publicly their internal divisions.” An exception is a challenge by mathematicians at Philadelphia’s Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology that attracted “evolutionists of some note” as participants. The result of the conference was “the mathematicians and the biologists agreed to disagree” (Witham 2002, p. 37). In short, the mathematicians believed that, in contrast to the evolutionists, it “seemed improbable that the mere shuffling of genes could yield such combinations as a DNA molecule of the human brain, or move through populations and produce dramatically new species” (Witham 2002, p. 37). Witham added that presenting both sides may convince many students [that] to reject the Darwinist side is a major motivation for the almost fanatic efforts by Darwinists to ensure that only one side of the controversy is taught. Eugenie Scott, in contrast to the empirical literature (and the experience of most teachers), argues that only pure unadulterated evolution should be taught, and should be taught as fact, because “using creation and evolution topics for critical-thinking exercises in primary and secondary schools is virtually guaranteed to confuse students about evolution.” Her real concern is that teaching both sides may lead students to “reject one of the major themes of science,” i.e., Darwinism (Witham, 2002, p. 23). In this conclusion she is correct.

Table 2. Undergraduate and graduate sciences classes completed by Jerry Bergman at Wayne State University; Medical College of Ohio; University of California–Berkeley; University of Toledo; University of Wisconsin; Bowling Green State University, and other colleges and universities.

Number

Course Title (credits)

Darwinism Content

Biology/Science

BIO 0161

Anatomy & Physiology I (5)

None

BIO 0162

Anatomy & Physiology II (4)

None

BIO 0151

General Biology I (6)

Some in chapter II of text (Kimball)

BIO 0152

General Biology II (6)

All of chapter VII (pp. 540–614) but was not covered in class

BIO 0507

Genetics (4)

Mentioned briefly (the professor often mocked creationists)

BIO 0220

Introduction to Microbiology (4)

None

BIO 0271

Comparative Vertebrate Zoology (6)

Almost none

BIO 0509

Evolution (4)

Topic of class, mostly covered history, genetics, and other topics that did not review evidence for the theory

BIO 137

Surface Phenomena in Physical and Biological Systems (4)

None

PSY 0330

Psychophysiology (4)

None

HYG 0281

Individual Hygiene (3)

None

PER 0172

First Aid (4)

None

SCE 3561

Science in the Elementary Schools (4)

None

GEG 0652

Field Study (4)

None

GEG 0390

Directed Study (2)

None

PHY 0191

Physics and Astronomy (4)

None

GSC 0156

Physical Science/Chemistry (4)

None

GEO 0110

World and Regional Geography (4)

None

GEO 0210

Elements of Geography (4)

None

U420-100

General Geology (4)

None

U640-100

Meteorology (3)

None

U736-101

Introduction to Philosophy (5)

Discussed very briefly in several units

U224-103

General Chemistry I (4)

None

U224-104

General Chemistry II (4)

None

CHM 698.0

Organic Chemistry (3)

None

CHM 698

Topics in Biochemistry Technology (3)

None

20.879

Basic and Advanced Light Microscopy (4)

None

PSY 0490

Biology of Learning (4)

None

BIO 2805

Substance Abuse (3)

None

U694-132

Nutrition Today (4)

None

NV 0502

Topics in Nutrition (8)

None

BIO 0332

Nutrition and Health Habits (3)

None

BIO 0523

Studies in Literature (Biological Evolution) (4)

Topic of class

BIO 0507

Evaluation Concepts and Methods (Eugenics) (12)

Topic of class

BIO 0508

Biometry (12)

None

BIO 0515

Human Development (Brain and Communication) (8)

None

BIO 0521

Holism, Concept: Its Origins and Implications (4)

None

BIO 0522

Ecology (4)

None

BIO 0523

Health and Healing Perspectives (4)

None

BIO 0507

Parasitology (4)

None

BIO 0573

Neuroscience (4)

None

BIO 0503

Cell Ultrastructure (4)

None

BIO 0502

Cell Biology (4)

None

MM 0311

Materials and Methods (3)

None

MM 0512

Doctoral Supplement Materials and Methods (1)

None

IS 0542

Ph.D. Diss. (noninvasive biology research/diagnostic tech.) (12)

None

10.651

Basic Science Interdepartmental Seminar (1)

Mentioned briefly

03.521

Recombinant DNA Methodology (2)

None

156898.02

Computed Tomography (4)

None

03.673

Research in Biochemistry (14)

None

03.657

Readings in Biochemistry (2)

None

03.672

Current topics in Biochemistry (3)

None

03.672

Current topics in Biochemistry (2)

None

20.886

Transmission Electron Microscopy (5)

None

15.889.09

Radiology: Magnetic Resonance Imaging (4)

None

CHM 698

Separation Science (3)

None

20.611.01

Human Genetics (3)

None

15.898.02

Computer Tomography (4)

None

20.673

Research, Biomedical Science (4)

None

50.699

Thesis Research (8)

None

50.699

Thesis Research (4)

None

10.672

Current Topics in Pathology (Cancer) (4)

None

IND1 500

Structure and Function of Normal Body (12)

None

IND1 699

Thesis Research (10)

None

CHM 699.7

Research in Chemical Education (1.5)

None

NERS 856

Readings in Neural Science (1.5)

None

DENT 656

Readings in Oral Biology (1.5)

None

PUBH 689

Independent Study in Environment Health (4)

None

CHM 698.M

Risks and Choices (5)

None

OCCH 501

Occupational Health (4)

None

CHM 699V

Industrial Chemistry follow-up (1.5)

None

PUBH 601

Public Health Epidemiology (4)

None

OCCH 673

Research in Occupational Health (4)

None

PUBH 603.01

Advanced Epidemiology (4)

None

CHM 698.P

Foods and Flavors (3)

None

CHM 698.T

Science of Pyrotechnics (3)

None

PUBH 698

Capstone Seminar (4)

None

HEAL 6600

Health Behavior (4)

None

PUBH 605

Introduction to Environmental Health (4)

None

PUBH 696

Public Health Internship (3)

None

CI 5950

Foundations of Grant Writing (4)

None

PATH 620.10

Principles of Toxicology (4)

None

PUBH 696

Public Health Internship (1)

None

CHM 689

Microscope (4)

None

PUBH 604

Public Health Administration (4)

None

PUBH 515

Principles of Environmental Health (4)

None

PUBH 550

Public Health Microbiology (4)

None

CHM 629

Chemical Aspects of Forensic Science (4)

None

CHM 628c

Pharmacology (4)

None

HEAL 6640

Issues in Public Health (4)

None

OCCH 561

Physical Agents (4)

None

OCCH 689

Independent Study (Mutations) (4)

None

OCCH 510

Human Systems and Occupational Diseases (3)

None

OCCH 640

Environmental and Occupational Health Law (3)

None

CHM 689

Safety (2)

None

CHM 689

Artful Chemistry (3)

None

OCCH 505

Principles of Occupational Safety (3)

None

OCCH 520

Air Monitoring and Analytical Methods (4)

None

CHM 627

Chemistry Research (5)

None

CHM 689

Chemistry of Corrosion (3)

None

OCCH 699

Thesis Research (4)

None

OCCH 535

Human Factors and Ergonomics (3)

Several sections alluded to evolution as being a reason for back and other health problems

OCCH 525

Chemistry of Hazardous Materials (3)

None

MAT 0151

Comparative Mathematics (4)

None

ELE 3315

Methods and Materials in Mathematics (4)

None

PSY 0310

Statistical Methods (4)

None

EER 6660

Field Studies in Research (4)

None

EER 9666

Directed Research (4)

None

EER 7661

Evaluation and Measurement (4)

None

EER 7664

Fundamental Research Skills (4)

None

EER 9668

Advanced Research and Experimental Design (4)

None

EER 7663

Fundamentals of Statistics (4)

None

EER 8663

Advanced Problems in Measurement (4)

None

EER 7665

Computer Use in Research (4)

None

EER 8664

Variance and Co-Variance Analysis (4)

None

EER 9666

Research Problems (4)

None

EER 9669

Doctoral Research (Evaluation and Research ( (45)

None

Total hours

549

In my experience, Darwinism is often discussed in non-science classes. For this reason I also evaluated my non-science course work, mostly in the behavioral science area.

Psychology

PSY 0251

Introduction to Psychology (4)

Mentioned in several chapters

PSY 0340

Development Psychology (4)

Briefly mentioned

PSY 0305

Psychology of Perception (4)

None

PSY 0335

Theories of Personality (4)

None

PSY 0310

Statistical Methods Psychology (4)

None

PSY 0460

Social Psychology (4)

Briefly mentioned

EDP 3731

Introduction to Study of Child (4)

Briefly mentioned

PSY 0330

Psychology of Adjustment (4)

None

PSY 0430

Abnormal Psychology (5)

None

PSY 0111

Industrial Psychology (3)

None

EDP 5745

Child Psychology (3)

None

EDP 7735

The Learning Process (3)

None

CP 7830

Environment and Child Psychology (6)

None

CP 6831

Introduction to Psychological Testing (3)

None except eugenics was covered unobtrusively

EDP 7741

Human Developmental Psychology (4)

Briefly mentioned

EDP 5741

Mental Hygiene and Education (3)

None

EDP 7731

Advanced Educational Psychology (6)

None

EDP 5742

Juvenile Delinquency and Schools (3)

None

EDP 5745

Adolescent Psychology (3)

None

EGC 7701

Role of the Teacher in Guidance (3)

None

EGC 7704

Case Problems in Guidance (3)

None

EGC 7705

The Counseling Process (3)

None

EDP 7749

Terminal Master Dissertation (4)

Was encountered in my research

PSY 0303

Intro to Experimental Psychology (6)

Briefly mentioned

PSY 0562

Psychology of Influence (4)

None

PSY 0628

Psychoanalytic Theory (4)

None

PSY 0330

Psychophysiology (4)

Briefly mentioned

PSY 0480

Concept Development in Children (4)

None

PSY 0508

Behavior Pathology I (5)

None

PSY 0509

Behavior Pathology II (5)

None

PSY 0440

Social Issues in Child Development (4)

None

PSY 0580

Psychology of Chiliastic Movements (4)

None

REH 0567

Community Approach to Counseling (4)

None

PSY 0682

Issues in EEOC Compliance (3)

None

REH 0558

Psychosocial Aspects of Disability (3)

None

Total

137

Sociology

SOC 0251

Introduction to Sociology (4)

None

SOC 0514

Social Stratification (4)

None

SOC 0541

Juvenile Delinquency (4)

Covered briefly

SOC 0202

Social Problems (3)

Discussed in connection with the biological theories of crime

SOC 0506

The Family (4)

Covered in class, not in textbook

SOC 0600

Methods in Social Research (4)

None

SOC 0616

Industrial Sociology (4)

None

SOC 0508

Race Relations in the USA (4)

None

SOC 0550

Marriage and Family Problems (4)

None

SSC 0151

Foundation of Modern Society, I (4)

Covered briefly

SSC 0152

Foundation of Modern Society, II (4)

Covered briefly

EDS 7621

Educational Sociology (3)

None

EDS 7623

Intergroup Rel. Comm. and School. (4)

None

POL 0511

Public Opinion and the Political Process (4)

None

POL 0151

American Government (5)

None

SOC 0460

Social Psychology (4)

None

ECI 0251

Basic Economics (5)

Social Darwinism covered briefly

ANT 0210

Introduction to Anthropology (5)

Covered rather extensively in both reading and lectures

SOC 0612

Community (4)

None

SOC 0680

Women and Institutions (4)

None

SOC 0670

The Sociology of Homosexuality (4)

None

SOC 0540

The Sociology of Education (4)

None

SOC 0561

Corrections (4)

Discussed in connection with biological theories of crime

SOC 0599

Master’s Thesis (10)

None

SOC 0590

Juvenile Delinquency (4)

None

SOC 0544

Deviant Behavior (4)

None

SOC 0682

Issues in Criminology (4)

None

SOC 0570

Studies in Suicide (4)

None

SOC 0652

Collective Behavior (4)

None

SOC 0504

Development of Modern Sociology (4)

None

SOC 0680

Ethnic Groups in America (4)

None

SOC 0562

Criminal Law (4)

None

SOC 0523

Sociology of Organization (4)

None

SOC 0525

Demography (4)

Covered as related to population problems

SOC 0535

Proseminar in Society Psychology (4)

None

SOC 0680

Police and Community (4)

None

SOC 0580

Social Gerontology (4)

None

SOC 0580

World Poverty (4)

None

SOC 0580

Theories of Social Problems (4)

None

SOC 0580

Sociology of Sport (4)

None

SOC 0580

Applied Social Research (4)

None

SOC 0502

Modern Social Theory (4)

None

SOC 0460

Family and Sex Roles (4)

None

SOC 0660

Theories of Criminology (4)

None

SOC 0670

Male Sex Roles (4)

None

SOC 0660

Myth and Myth Making (4)

Some coverage as related to world myths

Total

191

Education/Library Science

ED 3015

Schools and Society (4)

None

SSE 4571

Methods Social Stud. Ed. (4)

None

SSE 4572

Student Teaching Seminar—High School (4)

None

ELE 3321

Literature for Children (4)

None

Education/Library Science

ELE 4312

Student Teaching (Elementary) (16)

None

SSH 4572

Student Teaching (Secondary) (16)

None

SPE 5404

Diagnostic Speech Improvement (3)

None

ELE 3317

Methods and Materials of Language Arts Education (4)

None

EDP 3601

Introduction to the Philosophy of Education (4)

Covered both in the text and in class

LIB 0101

Introduction to Library (4)

None

LIB 0103

Introduction to Audio-Visual Material (5)

None

IT 5761

Technology in Education (4)

None

Total

72

History

HIS 0201

American Democracy to 1815 (4)

None

HIS 0202

American Democracy 1815–1885 (4)

None

HIS 0110

The World and the West—Foundations (4)

Covered briefly

HIS 0120

The World and the West 800–1700 (4)

Covered rather extensively in both the text and classroom lectures

HIS 0130

The World and the West—Modern (4)

Covered in relation to the Scopes trial

Total

20

Other Course Work

DRT 0111

Lay Out Drafting (4)

None

DRT 0112

Production Drafting (4)

None

ENG 0205

Composition and Literature (4)

None

ENG 151

English I (4)

Covered indirectly

ENG 152

English II (4)

Covered indirectly

ENG 261

Public Speaking (4)

Not covered

GER 0090

German Ph.D. Reading Requirement German (6)

Not covered

GRK 0101

Elementary Greek (4)

Not covered

ENG 0234

English Bible as Literature (4)

Covered in class discussions

ART 0156

Art Appreciation (4)

Not covered

PE 0134

Handball (1)

None

PE 0135

Archery (1)

None

PE 0136

Bowling (1)

None

Many scientists are aware of the fact that Darwinism is largely ignored in science instruction. One good example provided by Dawkins was in an after-lunch discussion with the teachers at a school he visited. He concluded that almost every teacher

confided that, much as they would like to, they didn’t dare to do justice to evolution in their classes. This was not because of intimidation by fundamentalist parents (which would have been the reason in parts of America). It was simply because of the A-level syllabus. Evolution gets only a tiny mention, and then only at the end of the A-level course. This is preposterous, for, as one of the teachers said to me, quoting the great Russian American biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky . . . ‘Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution’ (Dawkins 2003, p. 58).

The fact is virtually everything in biology makes perfect sense without ever mentioning Darwinism. Likewise, Shanks’ (2004, p. 228) claim that “evolutionary biology is the veritable glue that holds all the disparate branches of biological inquiry together and gives common focus to their collective endeavors” could hardly be true if it is not covered in most science classes. Shanks argument, that if you remove evolution “the biological sciences would degenerate into an incoherent collection of rudderless ships,” is irresponsible because evolution is often not in either the course work or the textbooks. The problem is, as recounted in The Harvard Crimson:

Although the postmodern era questions everything else—the possibility of knowledge, basic morality and reality itself—critical discussion of Darwin is taboo. While evolutionary biologists test Darwin’s hypothesis in every experiment they conduct, the basic premise of evolution remains a scientific Holy of Holies, despite our absurd skepticism in other areas. Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins writes: “It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who does not believe in evolution, that person is either ignorant, stupid, or insane.” Biologists continue to recite the worn credo, “the central, unifying principle of biology is the theory of evolution.” But where would physics be if Einstein had been forced to chant, “the central unifying principle of physics is Newtonian theory,” until he could not see beyond its limitations? (Halvorson 2003, p. 4).

Table 3. Undergraduate and Graduate Biological Sciences Classes Completed in the University of Guelph Honors Program

Course Title

Darwinism Content

Fundamental Chemistry

None

Organic Chemistry

None

Biochemistry

None

Introductory Zoology

Darwinism discussed or implies in text, at best a minor part of the course

In conclusion, my research agrees with University of California Ph.D. cell biologist Jonathan Wells, who also concluded the claim

that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” is demonstrably false. A person can be a first-rate biologist without being a Darwinist. In fact, a person who rejects Dobzhansky’s claim can be a better biologist than one who accepts it uncritically. The distinctive feature and greatest virtue of natural science, we are told, is its reliance on evidence. Someone who starts with a preconceived idea and distorts the evidence to fit it is doing the exact opposite of science. Yet this is precisely what Dobzhansky’s maxim encourages people to do (Wells 2000, p. 247).

Much of the problem, as an article in Life magazine said, is “for all its acceptance as the great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble” (Hitching 1982, p. 48).

Acknowledgments

I wish to thank Bert Thompson Ph.D., Jody Allen R.N., Clifford Lillo, Eric Blievernicht B.Sc. and several anonymous reviewers for their very helpful feedback on an earlier version of this article.

Court Case. 2002. Does a science teacher’s right to free speech entitle him or her to teach “evidence against evolution”? LeVakev. Independent School District #656, 625 N.W. 2d 502 [MN Ct. of Appeal 2000], cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1081 [2002].

Answers Research Journal

2012 Volume 5

Cutting-edge creation research. Free. Answers Research Journal (ARJ) is a professional, peer-reviewed technical journal for the publication of interdisciplinary scientific and other relevant research from the perspective of the recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework.

Submit a Paper

Email papers, diagrams, tables, etc. to the email address listed in the Manual.

Answers in Genesis is an apologetics ministry, dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith and proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively. We focus on providing answers to questions about the Bible—particularly the book of Genesis—regarding key issues such as creation, evolution, science, and the age of the earth.